Ashwani Dhingra Vs. Ccit - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
in the allahabad high court m. katju & umeshwar pandey, jj. - land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 4; [sushil harkauli, s.k. singh & krishna murari, jj] acquisition of land held, court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to acquire a particular land. land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive no direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. sri pankaj awasthhi appeared for the department.2. petitoners waiver application under section 273a of the income tax act has been dismissed as premature, vide order dated 23-7-2003 (annexure-3 to the writ petition). that order is under challenge before us.3. it appears that subsequently the petitioner filed another application before commissioner of income tax dated 4-9-2003, copy of which is annexure ca-2 to the counter affidavit which is said to be pending. this application dated 4-9-2003 can be treated to be a fresh waiver application and hence we direct the authority concerned to decide the same and any other application preferably within 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.4. if petitioner files certified copy of this order before the concerned authority within ten days from today, the same shall be decided on merits, and till the decision the impugned recovery shall remain stayed. petition disposed of.